Would war against ISIS be just?

Thanks Aaron, but I will keep my own counsel on this one. You declaring it isn’t possible to maintain doesn’t make it so. Just means right, but it is rightness by God’s standard, not yours or mine. Where does the NT give the command to go to war? If it doesn’t, then who are you to make it right to do so?

Since you still won’t give your definition of just war, from your posts it appears you seem to think “just” means “ideal” or “preferable.” Of course war is not ideal or preferable. But as you said, “just” simply means “right.” Sometimes it is right to kill. Sometimes it is right to go to war. As Aaron pointed out, the only real alternative to this is complete pacifism. You deny that you are a pacifist, but yet deny that there is such a thing as a just war. Confusing, to say the least.

[James K]

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

James K wrote:

If a person breaks into my home, and I shoot him dead, it was a necessary act to protect my family. It was not a just killing.

So…. it was an unjust killing? Earlier, you said you believe in the biblical concept of self-defense. Which is it? God says we can do something that He declares unjust or self defense killings are just? I will ask what others have asked:

JamesK, please define the word “just” for us.

Is it required of me to shoot a person who breaks into my home? Is there a biblical mandate? Before anyone says protecting one’s family, think through how far you are willing to go to do that and if that is the driving force for what we as Christians are to do.

I think back to the story Jesus told about the unjust servant in Luke 17. The servant was not just simply for having done his job. In fact, Jesus said he was good for nothing. Righteousness or justness isn’t breaking even. This is why the righteousness of God imputed to the believer isn’t merely a return to same state Adam was in. We actually possess rightness.

For this reason, just war is a myth.

​Got a two-fer here.

1) You continue to evade the question by refusing to answer what you mean by just, though in fairness you did narrow the infinite possibilities by telling us one thing it isn’t.

2) You also double back on yourself - again. You have previously said you believed self defense was biblical, but here you make it sound as if it isn’t. So which is it, or is this just another effort to obfuscate? Same thing you tried earlier saying just was is a myth but later back tracking that statement because you acknowledged God made just war (without sinning) in the OT.

[Greg Long]

Since you still won’t give your definition of just war, from your posts it appears you seem to think “just” means “ideal” or “preferable.” Of course war is not ideal or preferable. But as you said, “just” simply means “right.” Sometimes it is right to kill. Sometimes it is right to go to war. As Aaron pointed out, the only real alternative to this is complete pacifism. You deny that you are a pacifist, but yet deny that there is such a thing as a just war. Confusing, to say the least.

The opposite of pacifism isn’t the just war theory Greg.

Chip,

1. I don’t have some special definition of just. I have pointed to multiple scriptures and how Jesus raised the bar on what is truly good. The Canaan campaign reflected the character of God by direct command. Since no war begun by man will ever get a divine sanction again, no one can argue that the war reflects the character of God.

2. Self defense is something a person chooses to do or not do. We actually don’t have a command that we must defend ourselves. In fact, Paul seems to have chosen when it was more expedient for him to do so, but he hardly demanded it. It is hardly righteous to use self defense.

[James K]

Greg Long wrote:

Since you still won’t give your definition of just war, from your posts it appears you seem to think “just” means “ideal” or “preferable.” Of course war is not ideal or preferable. But as you said, “just” simply means “right.” Sometimes it is right to kill. Sometimes it is right to go to war. As Aaron pointed out, the only real alternative to this is complete pacifism. You deny that you are a pacifist, but yet deny that there is such a thing as a just war. Confusing, to say the least.

The opposite of pacifism isn’t the just war theory Greg.

[James K]

Chip,

1. I don’t have some special definition of just. I have pointed to multiple scriptures and how Jesus raised the bar on what is truly good. The Canaan campaign reflected the character of God by direct command. Since no war begun by man will ever get a divine sanction again, no one can argue that the war reflects the character of God.

2. Self defense is something a person chooses to do or not do. We actually don’t have a command that we must defend ourselves. In fact, Paul seems to have chosen when it was more expedient for him to do so, but he hardly demanded it. It is hardly righteous to use self defense.

At some point, it is ‘just’ to fight against ‘injustice’, is it not?
The OT examples are, quite frankly, irrelevant to this situation. God doesn’t sanction war now in the way that he did then.

I have no qualms - none whatsover - with going to war with a death cult that practices rape, murder, crucifixion, mass starvation and other atrocities of the worst kind. This is not geo-political war, this is a war of ideology. ISIS/ISIL has already shown that they will conquer by the sword and that they cannot be reasoned with or diplomacized to change their behavior. Therefore, we must fight against them.

This doesn’t mean that we fight without restraint against everyone. It means that we do not have the option for anything other than war. As was remarked of the Joker in The Dark Knight - “They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

[James K]

Thanks Aaron, but I will keep my own counsel on this one. You declaring it isn’t possible to maintain doesn’t make it so. Just means right, but it is rightness by God’s standard, not yours or mine. Where does the NT give the command to go to war? If it doesn’t, then who are you to make it right to do so?

Which takes us back to an earlier question: in your view, is it ever right to go to war or not? You have stated that you do not believe in pacifism. Ergo, sometimes it is right to go to war in your view?

I’m not attempting to be persuasive at all; just trying to find out what your view is. There is no virtue in coy contrarianism. There is virtue (at least potentially) in clarity.

Here’s another example of ISIS terror, via the UK Guardian:

“I beg you not to publish my name because I’m so ashamed of what they are doing to me. There’s a part of me that just wants to die. But there is another part of me that still hopes that I will be saved and that I will be able to embrace my parents once again,” she told Italy’s La Repubblica newspaper.

The newspaper was able to interview her by calling her on her mobile phone, after being given the number by her parents, who are in a refugee camp in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The woman said her captors had initially confiscated her mobile and those of all the other women, but had then “changed strategy”, returning the phones so that the women and girls could recount to the outside world the full horror of what was happening to them.

“To hurt us even more, they told us to describe in detail to our parents what they are doing. They laugh at us because they think they are invincible. They consider themselves are supermen. But they are people without a heart.

“Our torturers do not even spare the women who have small children with them. “Nor do they spare the girls - some of our group are not even 13 years old. Some of them will no longer say a word.” The woman, given the false name Mayat by La Repubblica, said the women were raped on the top floor of the building, in three rooms. The girls and women were abused up to three times a day by different groups of men.

”They treat us as if we are their slaves. The men hit us and threaten us when we try to resist. Often I wish that they would beat me so severely that I would die.”

Some of the men were young fighters fresh from Syria, while others were old men.

“If one day this torture ever ends, my life will always be marked by what I have suffered in these weeks. Even if I survive, I don’t know how I’m going to cancel from my mind this horror.

“We’ve asked our jailers to shoot us dead, to kill us, but we are too valuable for them. They keep telling us that we are unbelievers because we are non-Muslims and that we are their property, like war booty. They say we are like goats bought at a market.

The captive women were praying for rescue by anti-Isil ground forces or an international intervention.

And we have to debate whether or not going to war against this is worthwhile? Give me a break.

[Jay]

At some point, it is ‘just’ to fight against ‘injustice’, is it not?

The OT examples are, quite frankly, irrelevant to this situation. God doesn’t sanction war now in the way that he did then.

I have no qualms - none whatsover - with going to war with a death cult that practices rape, murder, crucifixion, mass starvation and other atrocities of the worst kind. This is not geo-political war, this is a war of ideology. ISIS/ISIL has already shown that they will conquer by the sword and that they cannot be reasoned with or diplomacized to change their behavior. Therefore, we must fight against them.

This doesn’t mean that we fight without restraint against everyone. It means that we do not have the option for anything other than war. As was remarked of the Joker in The Dark Knight - “They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

1. This is the question though Jay. If there is injustice, is the only response just? In other words, is the only reaction to the injustice automatically just? I say no. It isn’t just and word is not used as it is biblically.

2. Agreed.

3. I don’t have a moral objection to it either Jay. I stop short of calling it righteous or just though.

4. I love that quote, and I would agree that it could be applied to ISIS.

By the way, are these not the same militants that John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Barrack Obama wanted to arm before Vlad Putin prevented it?

[Jay]

And we have to debate whether or not going to war against this is worthwhile? Give me a break.

I am debating whether or not such a thing as a “just” war exists.

[Aaron Blumer]

Which takes us back to an earlier question: in your view, is it ever right to go to war or not? You have stated that you do not believe in pacifism. Ergo, sometimes it is right to go to war in your view?

I’m not attempting to be persuasive at all; just trying to find out what your view is. There is no virtue in coy contrarianism. There is virtue (at least potentially) in clarity.

Governments have been given the authority of the sword. I believe that is intended for capital punishment, but some extend that into the right to wars. War is permissible in the sense that governments are to maintain some kind of structured society. I don’t think war is righteous or just.

By the way Jay, if the standard for going to war with a nation is that atrocities exist within it, then every nation would be just to be at war with every other nation.

I’ll give you the last point for sure.

JamesK, you mentioned:

In other words, is the only reaction to the injustice automatically just? I say no. It isn’t just and word is not used as it is biblically.

No, any automatic reaction to injustice cannot be automatically just. Otherwise, God would not have set limits on retribution for crimes and infractions in the Old Testament. The famous ‘eye for an eye’ passage was not only a way of determining a just punishment, but also a barrier/limit on what the punishment could be. So in the case of Dinah (Genesis 34), the retribution was far in excess of what God required, which brought His punishment as well.

I’m not saying that we must intervene in every situation. I remember watching footage of our troops in Somalia and the UN forces in Bosnia in the ’90s. What I do think is that if the blood of the innocent cry for justice, and this nation has the ability to do something (which we do - we’re just lacking political backbone to do so), then we do, in this case, enforce the mores of civilized nations and go to war against it.

I’m not sure if the weapons and items intended for Syrian rebels would have wound up in the hands of ISIS terrorists, but I’m fairly sure they wouldn’t have wound up with abandoned US weapons, equipment, and tools if we’d acted sooner.